Daydreamer

One serious flaw with your plan that I can see Mad Max:

Suppose you meet a Christian, and at the end of your conversation, exchange 'God bless you's. Now the question is, do they mean the same thing coming from two different people, or the same? What is/are this/these meaning(s)?

If you each are allowed to define god however you want, language breaks down and all conversation becomes meaningless. Take the chair example - although actual chairs can be seen and touched, the line between 'chair', 'arm-chair', 'stool', and 'recliner' can be easily blured beyond recognition, can be blured with things you merely lean against, etc. etc. A Wittgensteinian language game at its worst.

If you agree on a definition, the question is which. You can appoint a small body to do it, or let the majority rule - we have a hybrid of these two, a blend of a small number of dictionaries with the quasi-majoritarian nature (public opinion) of how their experts decide. If you want to change the definition you have to go through them, which means forcing your definition on 2 billion Xians world wide, 1.2 million Muslims, a few hundred thousand Jews, and about 3 billion others. Not easy. This is a version of Carnap's Principle of Tolerance, by the way.

The word god means a monotheistic, personal deity, with a strong bent towards YHWH, and there is little we can do to change it. One Constitutional Amendment and tens of millions of American non-monotheists, as well as some liberal monotheists, say it has to go.

madmax2976

Of course that would be a poor analogy since you can point to an object that we reference as "coffeemaker". Point to an object called "God" and your point would have merit.

Oh, and I still consider myself an atheist... I just define atheist as one who doesn't believe in any deities. Deities being those personal, intelligent, supernatural entity things.

But alas, I'll count you out of the revolution. Its damn hard to find revolutionairies these days. Could you at least consider being the marching drummer or the flag carrier?

Seriously though, you might want to read up on Pantheism, particularly Scientific Pantheism. You might find you like it.

madmax2976

Nothing new here. That already happens if a Hindu and a Christian meet or a Wiccan and a Muslim meet.

For myself I wouldn't say such a thing as the definition of God I hold to wouldn't give any meaning to "bless you".

<strong> Since there are many different ideas of what God is, this is practically the case anyhow. The first thing you have to do when debating a theist is figure out what he/she means by "God". This automatic assumption that its a personal, intelligent, supernaturally powered entity has no basis in fact. Since that is the case, it is open to definition.

Besides, if Hawking, Einstein and other physicists can do it, it can't be all that bad an idea.

<strong> No, because those things all have a firm foundation. "God" doesn't.

Esesentially what your are saying is that Pantheists can't be Pantheists. This is terrible!

<strong> I'm refusing to let the Christian majority rule on this definition any longer. You shouldn't let them either. Their beliefs are nothing special and every effort should be made to make them realize that.

<strong> Ha! Who said revolution was ever easy? The Christian god is Yahweh, the Muslim god is Allah, and the Jewish god is Yahweh/Jehovah. Lets drive that point home and refuse them the automatic assumption that their deity is "God" - particularly those pesky Christians!

<strong> On the contrary I can point out to all Christians that their deity is just one of hundreds whose name happens to be Yahweh as opposed to Zeus or Vishnu. I can point out that they have no lock on the term "God".

The alternative prohibits me from being a Pantheist. Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge their authority or power to do that.

<strong> Actually that would be your interpretation. I have sincere doubts that a majority of the Supreme Court justices will agree with you. I doubt even the full 9th district court will agree. Certainly most of the American public doesn't agree with you.

It would be a suprise of monumental proportions for this ruling to stand.

Philosoft

Would a photo of my coffeemaker be okay?

<strong> I'll go you one better. I'm a noncognitivist who dons my old atheist outfit at times. I don't even think "God" refers to a concept. But since that argument generally only receives constructive feedback at places like this one, I usually leave it at home.

<strong> I'm certainly not going to begrudge you your hopes and dreams. I just think it's going to make my atheist arguments that much more convoluted when I have to preface them with, "Now, we're both going to use the word 'God' but when I use it, I mean x and when you use it, you will presumably mean y. And to differentiate, I will use God-x and God-y as appropriate." Silly.

And my noncognitivist arguments become semi-cognitivist absurdities: "Yes 'God' refers to a concept, it's just not the one you're not thinking of."

<strong> I'm always up for a good read. Any recommendations?

madmax2976

Sure, here's a link with some good info.


<a href="http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/" target="_blank">Pantheism</a>


Oh, and the problem you forsee, determining what "God" means in any given conversation between to different parties - that problem already exists anyhow. Its just a matter of degree. The difference between a Deist and a Christian regarding the characteristics of God are tremendous. All I'm doing is extending the degree if you will.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

galiel

Replace the word "God" with "Satan," and see how your suggestions plays. Or replace "under God" with "Without God".

Or imagine the Pledge said this: "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for white male heterosexuals." Would you still be arguing for optional language or multiple versions?

(edited for spelling)

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Spazmatic

Sure, you can point to an object and tell me that's a chair. But, how do I know this other, strange looking thing that's of different material, a different shape, etc, is also a chair? Because society has developed a concept of a chair.

What you are saying is to do the same with "God". Right now, people point to Yahweh/Jehovah and to Allah and say, "God", and most people come to understand it then as referring to a monotheistic god. For god, people point to Zeus, etc..., and we accept god as equalling deity. And so forth... What you are trying to do is redefine that word in terms of something else, in this case, expanding the definition. That'd be like including tables under chairs. There's nothing that actually says we can't make tables chairs, but good luck on it.